Should Kamala Harris fight fire with fire in the battle over economic policy?

Much as many would, understandably, like it to be otherwise, the presidential election is not yet over, it is not yet in the bag for Kamala Harris, and there remains a near even chance that Donald J Trump will be sworn in as president of the United States on 25 January 2025.

Certainly, since Joe Biden pulled out of the race, Vice-President Harris has enjoyed something of a honeymoon, and has built up more momentum with what seems to be the inspired choice of Tim Walz as her own VP pick. Yet, as the Republicans constantly point out, she has avoided interviews and other opportunities for the media to subject her policies to hard examination.

Indeed, she has been decidedly policy-light since she inherited the Democratic nomination. But she has now begun to scope out her approach on the most crucial issue of all – the economy.

Inflation shows up as the single most important issue for the voters, and “pocket book” politics have always been central. As things stand now, it is the issue that could yet rescue the contest for Trump, or even propel Harris to a more decisive victory than anyone would have thought possible even a few weeks ago. And, after a period of some characteristic chaos, Trump has also decided to focus on the issue – at least to the extent that he can ever focus on anything before veering off into wisecracks.

Yes, unusually. Trump is helped, because he has inflation on his side, so to speak. In a series of sometimes bizarre moments, the former president has blamed the Biden administration, and Harris personally, for the spike in prices that has eroded living standards in the US and the Western world more generally.

For instance, waving two packs of Tic Tacs around – surely a presidential first – Trump sought to make the point about “shrinkflation”, though most shoppers understand the phenomenon only too well. At times he seemed to indicate that he was only discussing the economy because his advisers had told him to, and he looked like he would rather be rattling through his well-worn “terrorists and lunatic asylums and you won’t have a country” routine about the border.

Trump does at least have the semblance of an attack line and an argument. Inflation was lower when he held office. Prices of many essentials, notably petrol, are higher, as are interest rates (to get the inflation down). Much of the inflation was of course due to the dislocation of energy and commodity markets after the invasion of Ukraine – to which Trump adds the hypothetical assertion that the war would never have happened if he’d still been in charge.

To get energy prices down and thus push inflation lower, Trump also has his familiar cry, “Drill, baby, drill!”, now allied to a new target of reducing energy bills by “more than half” (even by 70 per cent, he suggests). He says that he will loosen regulations on oil and gas production, and make America a dominant player in fossil-fuel markets (and despite his bromance with Elon Musk, will scale back solar and wind energy). It’s all bad news for the planet, but for households looking to make their dollars go further, it may prove an attractive package.

So this is what Harris is up against, aside from the (admittedly visceral) issue of immigration, the vulgar abuse, and the insane questioning of her identity. It may be just as well that Harris has some populist lines of her own to promote.

Fighting fire with fire, it’s a pretty populist one. She wants to fight the big corporations’ oligopolies; legislate against “price-gouging” – exploiting inflation to sneakily push prices up; negotiate once again lower prices for prescription drugs, as Biden did successfully; build more homes to reduce their cost; increase tax credits for parents; and generally be on the side of consumers.

She can also point to the recent wave of inflation being down to Vladimir Putin, and the fact that it is now down to 2.9 per cent, with the economy still growing reasonably well (albeit showing signs of weakness lately).

In terms of attacking Trump, her best line is probably the fact that his protectionist tariffs – 10 per cent for all imports and even higher ones on Chinese goods – would increase the price of pretty much everything and make every American household poorer within a matter of months.

The Harris-Biden administration also has a respectable record on jobs and Medicaid, things that “middle-class” Americans appreciate. Provided she can master her economic policy in the same way that she has refined her talent for needling Trump, she’ll give her opponent a run for his money.